Comment by stinkbeetle
13 hours ago
Are you claiming that people who think that way are racist? That's violent unsanctioned speech, bro.
13 hours ago
Are you claiming that people who think that way are racist? That's violent unsanctioned speech, bro.
Spare me. Calling criticism "violent unsanctioned speech" is a tired, adolescent MAGA-adjacent move: provoke with loaded caricature, then reframe accountability as persecution.
You exhibit the same performative grievance-driven identity pattern across your other comments: sweeping "regime and cronies" rhetoric, insinuations without evidence ("what did Obama get in return?"), mocking humanitarian concern as manipulation, and then retreating to grievance when challenged.
That’s not satire; it’s MAGA-adjacent culture-war edgelording.
If you quote racism without clearly rejecting it, you’re responsible for how it lands; if you didn’t want your comment read as endorsing racist tropes, you shouldn’t have put them on the page without explicit rejection. Accountability isn’t censorship, and criticism isn’t violence.
This isn’t uncharitable or violent; it’s grievance rhetoric filling the gap when your argument doesn’t land.
Happy Festivus, Georgie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1njzgXSzA-A
Looks like one of the white knights of the left is riding in on an extremely high horse to defend the poor simple indigenous folx. Bravo.
I'm so glad you were able to police my other comments too, they're also wrong but you're incapable of addressing them so you just decree with no evidence rquired that they make me "MAGA-adjacent" and therefore a bad person. Apparently it's fine to have grievance rhetoric against governments except when the corrupt warmongers happen to be the secular high priests of your religion. This is so great! I'm sorry for all the violent hate speech that offended you so, my liege.
I agree, it's much better to name the movement you represent by its original name and don't waste time trying to engage in conversation.